inferring synaptic update rules in a neural simulator
play

Inferring Synaptic Update Rules in a Neural Simulator Honours - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Inferring Synaptic Update Rules in a Neural Simulator Honours Thesis Ryan Fayyazi April 2020 HMM for static neural circuit Synaptic Weight Matrix Membrane Potential Intracellular [Ca 2+ ] Calcium Fluorescence euroscience Background


  1. Inferring Synaptic Update Rules in a Neural Simulator Honours Thesis Ryan Fayyazi April 2020

  2. HMM for static neural circuit Synaptic Weight Matrix Membrane Potential Intracellular [Ca 2+ ] Calcium Fluorescence

  3. Νeuroscience Background Membrane Potential ● determines neuron’s activity (depolarization = active, hyperpolarization = suppressed) ● membrane potential = electrical potential inside neuron - electrical potential outside neuron electrical potentials determined by concentrations of charged ions (e.g. Na + , K + , Cl - ) ●

  4. Νeuroscience Background Intracellular [Ca 2+ ] ● increases when neuron’s membrane is depolarized Calcium Fluorescence measures intracellular [Ca 2+ ] using molecules ● which fluoresce when they bind calcium ● indirect measure of neuron activity

  5. Synaptic Plasticity Synaptic Weight Matrix ● Synapse: junction where membrane potential of one neuron influences membrane potential of another electrical synapse chemical synapse ● Synaptic Weight: abstraction denoting influence exerted by one neuron on the other ○ Synaptic weight determined by receptor, channel, presynaptic vesicle density, etc.

  6. Deterministic Simulator

  7. Synaptic Plasticity Donald Hebb (1949): When cell A “repeatedly or persistently” takes part in firing cell B, the efficiency of A’s signal to B (weight of synapse) is increased by some physiological process Cell A Cell B Bliss & Lomo, 1973 Most learning theories incorporate the idea that synaptic plasticity is a fundamental mechanism by which behavioural response is modified.

  8. Synaptic Plasticity ?

  9. Formalizing Synaptic Update Rules Donald Hebb (1949): When cell A “repeatedly or persistently” takes part in firing cell B, the efficiency of A’s signal to B (weight of synapse) is increased by some physiological process Compositional structure: upstream synaptic weights S = div({}, mul({}, {})) presynaptic firing rates postsynaptic firing rate Continuous parameter(s): rate constant 𝛊 =

  10. SURF Goal ? Model synaptic weight dynamics underlying plasticity in a given behaviour Big picture: infer given observations of neural activity in circuit underlying behaviour, during learning

  11. Simplifying Assumptions ? 1) Deterministic simulator and : ● only need and ● maximum a posteriori estimate is decent approximation of 2) Finite set of candidate structures : ● first step towards difficult search over infinite discrete structure space

  12. Continuous Optimization ? Objective

  13. Continuous Optimization ? Objective

  14. Continuous Optimization ? Objective Rayleigh distribution with scale parameter for each non-zero entry equaling the experimentally determined naive weights

  15. Continuous Optimization ? Objective

  16. Continuous Optimization ? Objective By LLN Approximate expectation with Monte Carlo integration

  17. Continuous Optimization ? Objective This MC integration requires: 1) Samples ● Sample with simulator, initialize randomly 2) Emission density

  18. Synaptic Update Rule Finder

  19. Experiment Plastic behaviour of interest: Tap-withdrawal response habituation in C. elegans (roundworm) Andrew Giles Giles & Rankin, 2009

  20. Experiment Tap-withdrawal circuit has been identified ● Mechanosensory neuron-interneuron synapses thought to be site of plasticity ● Simulator = circuit + ODEs

  21. Experiment Problem: No available observations from tap-withdrawal circuit during habituation Solution: Build synthetic observations using Hebb’s rule, which results in habituation-ish simulator dynamics 1) Initialize v o and c o independently with samples from Gaussian (c) (e) with experimentally determined naive synaptic weights 2) Initialize w o and w 0 Set R (c) and R (e) to Hebb’s rule, τ w (c) = τ w (e) = 0.001 3) 4) Simulate forward with habituation-inducing currents injected into mechanosensory neurons 5) Sample calcium fluorescence observations with

  22. Results: Generated Candidate Rules Observation-generating rule pair: Observation-generating rules: Candidate rule pair A Sampled with recursive random rule generator G(d) Candidate rule pair B Same structure as “true” rules Candidate rule pair C

  23. Results Candidate pair with “true” structure achieved lowest loss 0 -1000 -2000 Loss (Not Normalized) -3000 -4000 -5000 -6000 -7000 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 Optimization Step

  24. Results Candidate pair with “true” structure produced best qualitative reconstruction of latent dynamics during habituation after optimization Candidate rule pair A Candidate rule pair B Candidate rule pair C

  25. Results (c) and w 0 (e) . Candidate pair with “true” structure achieved correct initial synaptic weights w 0 Electrical Synapses Chemical Synapses

  26. Future Directions Develop strategy for searching over infinite, discrete space of rule structures ● This thesis showed that given enough samples, SURF finds the correct rule and initial weights ● Frame as infinitely many-armed bandit with finite gradient descent budget during structure exploration Test SURF using observations (1) which capture more of habituation’s characteristic features, and (2) from real organisms undergoing habituation ● Infer intracellular [Ca2+] in tap-withdrawal neurons from videos of worms undergoing habituation, and convert this inferred value to fluorescence ● Use feature-based optimization to estimate rule and initial weights from behavioural data (e.g. reversal magnitude) gathered during habituation Perform bayesian inference instead of maximum a posteriori estimation ● Use stochastic simulator ● Perform inference with sequential Monte Carlo or Metropolis-Hastings estimation.

  27. References Adriel, E. L., & Rankin, C. H. (2010). An elegant mind: Learning and memory in Caenorhabditis elegans. Learning & Memory, 17 (4), 191-201. Bliss, T. V. P., & Lømo, T. (1973). Long-lasting potentiation of synaptic transmission in the dentate area of the anaesthetized rabbit following stimulation of the perforant path. Journal of Physiology, 232 , 331-356. Dayan P., & Abbott, L. F. (2001). Theoretical Neuroscience: Computational and mathematical modeling of neural systems. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Dudek, S. M., & Bear, M. F. (1992). Homosynaptic long-term depression in area CA1 of hippocampus and effects of n-methyl-d-aspartate receptor blockade. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 89, 4363-4367 . Giles, A. C., & Rankin, C. H. (2008). Behavioral and genetic characterization of habituation using Caenorhabditis elegans. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 92, 139-146. Hebb, D. O. (1949). The Organization of Behaviour: A Neuropsychological Theory. Wiley, New York, New York. Kandel, E. (2013). Principles of Neural Science, Fifth Edition . The McGraw-Hill Companies. Purves, D., Augustine, G. J., Fitzpatrick, D., Hall, W. C., LaMantia, A. S., Mooney, R. D., Platt, M. L., & White, L. E. (2018). Neuroscience, Sixth Edition . Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Wicks, S. R., Roehrig, C. J., & Rankin. C. H. (1996). A dynamic network simulation of the nematode tap withdrawal circuit: Predictions concerning synaptic function using behavioral criteria. Journal of Neuroscience, 16 (12):4017-4031.

Recommend


More recommend